Because it's a public university, funded by our tax dollars, and also that pesky little thing called the 1st amendment. Enjoy your fascism you little Brown Shirt.
Your right to free speech does not give you the right to enter events and be totally disruptive. Protest all you want outside the event, I'm sure you would have been yelling and interupting Senator Obama's speech.
LOL all you people commenting on are retarded redneck republican douchebags.. first of all why the fuck are you even at a obama rally if you support a republican candidate??? and if ur answer is to use ur right of the 1st amendment then you really need to get a life.
The obama campeign is starting to look like hitler all over again. He can use the homegrown terrorim bill to shut down anyone who speaks out against the government and its standings. We will all be helpless against the government at that point. Forgive me from saying this but I hope someone assasinates him.
just wait until Hussein obama is elected president. the good old days of free speech will be no more. we only be able to read about it in history books...that is history books approved by the brown shirts appointed by Hussein obama and his party.
all i have to say is look down south to the country controlled by president chavez. this is what our country and "free speech" laws will be like.
Obama doesn't allow free speech on youtube either. nor Clinton. I don't know about Mccain? Obama's change looks alot like a police state. Sad days indeed.
You're right they shield themselves and their audiences from differing opinions...so free and democratic, don't you think? I forgot we fell asleep and woke up in a carefully controlled and contrived, oligarchical, police state. Are you old enough to remember what America stands for? The remnant of freedom-loving people have awoken. You will see.
I love you. BTW...I'm a registered Republican who believes in your right to bear arms and understands the Constitution through a strict interpretation. I don't believe in government handouts or forced charity. Your attempts to be divisive and play identity politics do not work with me.
The "Gozilla" music during the encounter with the bike-riding "paperz pleaze" Nazis was hilarious.
Unconstitutional, and un-American, demanding ID from a random guy on the street. Guess brownshirts like these gotta get in the game early right? Fucking Nazi wannabes.
He's a black presidential candidate in a predominantly white country. Why the FUCK else would he need extra high security. After all, you idiots wanted to disrupt his campaign. Fuck off and hold your own instead of disrupting his right to free speech.
this rally was done at a public university, which means that no student should have been banned for having a Ron Paul sign. but apparantly you havent read the constitution.
Where in the constitution does it say that in order to practice free speech you are permitted to disrupt another person's right to free speech? Get is right will you!
Don't you Ron Paul idiots have anything better to do than to protest and heckle at other candidate's rallies? Do you also realize that you are not helping your cause by doing this? You people are pulling this crap on everybody all over the country and all it does is make you and Ron Paul look really stupid. Perhaps you should simply focus on holding rallies of your own instead. Or...does that get you no attention? Hmmm.
Would you like to have a real discussion devoid of name calling and hatefulness? If so, I'd discuss with you why this video is a sign of democracy at work and share with you some of the reasons why I support my candidate and everyone who wants to exercise their right of political speech.
Under the first amendment, everyone is given the ability to believe anything, and they cannot be persecuted. But it does not give everyone the right to practice their beliefs, in cases where they are a danger to security. People who believe in human sacrifice are able to believe that because of the 1st, but they can't practice it. You can support Ron Paul, but you can't practice acts that heckle other candidates. The First Amendment isn't a weapon, guys, it's a shield!
Loved the video. I started laughing when you were screaming about the council for foreign realations and he just kept walking because he was too chicken to answer. GO RON PAUL.
I guess i would assume rallies are for people supporting the person. It seems like your being a nuisance in order to gain publicity for ron paul. which i see as a bad way to go about it.
anyway. who am i to say whats wrong, at least your supporting the right candidate.
I sincerely respect Paul and his views. But, I will never stand with the spamming scum who support him. If you guys are wondering why Paul is not dominating the polls as he probably should be, its cause his supporters are ruining his credibility by pulling stunts like this. This is the same crap as spamming every political YouTube video. Knock off the political gaminess.
What a ridiculous argument. You wont support the candidate because you don't like his supporters. How mindless to base your opinion on anything other than the candidate and his actions.
My guess is you wouldn't support him anyway, and I think, in reality, your comment is meant to sow some seeds of discontent with the electorate over the nature of Paul's political supporters.
People are responding to his message. If you think someone else's message is stronger than support them.
This is your post so I will be as respectful of your opinion as possible. What I was saying is this video makes me mad at the supporters so I would never rally with these similar minded people. I never said I wouldn't vote for Paul in the end. I do like his platform. It just seems to be a common theme I am seeing and it frustrates me cause I think Paul would do better without this negative campaigning gaminess from his supporters. Call me mindless if you like...
In America, we as individuals still enjoy the right to support a candidate however one chooses. What exactly is it you saw in this video that turns you off? I know what turns me off? Having a public speech at a public university and shutting down any alternative voices with fences and paid thugs. That tells me the candidate is afraid of other messages.
Are you trying to make the police scary with the music overlay? Seriously, the guy is just keeping a record of events. Same thing happened to me when I was at campus at closing time because I lost my wallet. Also, don't expect Obama to answer random shouting.
Are you certain of that statement? What if it is the policy of the institution as a whole that to be on the grounds one must be willing to submit ID to an officer? Also, the officer wasn't a tough guy at all. He was polite and apologetic. He indicated that he thought it was unfortunate that he had to require ID, but that policy is policy. Talk about bias.
Pt. 1. Like I said earlier Sam, the cop did have probable cause to ask for ID in this situation. Besides, there were signs all over saying that everyone on site was subject to search. You were allowed to refuse search, but then they were allowed to eject you.
Pt. 2. That means he could have refused to show ID, but not only would that enhance the probable cause case, but it would have meant that he would have been removed over safety concerns.
Its a whole different deal when the Secret Service is there protecting a VIP. Standard rules are supplimented by threat specific rules. Thats why we haven't had an assasination attempt in decades.
I could make the argument that I am a sovereign unto myself by virtue of my humanity and claim the protections of the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments...which is an argument that would have been mainstream 30 years ago...through our government schools and 2 decades of "COPS," we are now three generations into Authoritarian America. We were already quasi-socialists since the 30's. It's now just being cemented in. Our republic is in jeopardy and this is why people are so rabid about Paul.
Pt. 3. That being said, we are way, way to over compliant. To paraphrase Michael Moore (who I don't always agree with, but do a fair amount of times), in many other countries (France is the example) the government is afraid of the people, cause they'll take to the streets in protest at a moments notice, and often do. Whereas here, the people are afraid of the government. We need to reverse that and take it to the streets again like we did in the '60s
"the cop did have probable cause to ask for ID in this situation."
If this is private property then the owner can set the rules, in which case all bets are off as to the ID thing, I suppose. Otherwise I don't see the lawful basis here. Your nervousness does not create an enforceable obligation on my part to quell your nerves.
(BTW, I'm going away for 3 days so I may not get back here. Email me if a further answer is important.)
this is not private property. it is a public state university. the police have legitimate jurisdiction. and probable cause trumps private property, legally speaking.
Yeah..you are right about that...I guess I coulda made a stink about the I.D. but, it woulda got me nowhere, and I might have been in Turkey the next day, getting water-boarded...
No, making the police scary was not the intent...I think if you read my comments on the side that the police were nothing but professional...The music is from Jaws and I thought it was appropriate because they circled me like sharks until they finally came up to me. And for the record, I think it's disconcerting anytime I'm being questioned by police especially if I'm doing nothing wrong.
Pt. 4 Like with any influential organization, it all depends on whos in power at any given time. For the most part, CFR stays pretty moderate, with the exception of a period during viet nam when a hawk was put in charge of the quarterly journal. But the membership was rightly outraged by his appointment.
But anyway, nice job with the video, and the persistence.
If cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing it for what it is, I suppose that's somewhat understandable, but the history is clear. The CFR is an enemy of sovereignty, and hence an enemy of America. It has a veneer of respectability which shimmers away under scrutiny.
Just out of curiousity, would you give a specific example or two of outright evil actions taken by the CFR (preferably not from the period I mentioned during Viet Nam)? And what exactly do you see is its role in government?
Well, to be honest, most of their actions are done in the darkness...but here's a quote from the David Rockefeller..
This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.
True, theres not much transparency for those not in the political circle, and I'd like to see a little more. Though my connections are tenious at best, I do know enough to know that the bulk of whats done is on the level. And the bulk of it thats not has been brought to the publics attention. Why do you think you have negative views of it? Because you've heard about all of the negatives. And rightly so.
Pt 2. The reason we're a republic is because the general population is not equipped to be involved in every decision, so whats is appropriate is not always brought to the publics attention until its complete.
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. ...
...Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
This quote does and yours do not urge a radical new world order against the interests of the US. What Ron Paul wants is the US out of other countries. So how do we do that without sacrificing our interests abroad? Through international cooperation. This is part of the Liberalism International Relations Theory that states that peace can be had through cooperation and interdependence.
That doesn't mean we can't be self sustaining, it just means that we should have close diplomatic relations with other countries and ties to NGOs throught the world. This allows us to be directly uninvolved internationally with the military and any other non-diplomatic personel. It goes very much in line with with RP's non interventionisnt/get out of other countries and their affairs plan.
Here is a quote from Colonel Mandell House, the founder of the CFR: "[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency."
"Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions".
Straight from the mouth of the founder on the CFR. By the way, the Rockefellers and Morgans invested huge sums of money into the Nazi party, which was the ONLY reason such a minority extremist party was able to rise to prominence. They also produced a fuel additive that Nazi war planes NEEDED, or they could not fly. The Rockefellers were happy to sell the patented fuel to Hitler through the entire war.
The CFR created the Fed. Reserve through lies and trickery, allowing private banks to take control of the economy and create a system of perpetual debt, which is by design, as Mandell House admitted. The CFR's goal is dissolution of all borders and any civil constitutions that maintain them. Law would then be written through abstract governing bodies like the WTO, who does not answere to the public. Sounds like tyranny to me.
you're mistakeing erasing borders with international cooperation, see my earlier post.
I want to see a citation for that quote. If its real, there is likely context. And even if its real, he says "soon" and that was about 80 years ago, probably. Have you had to enter your dna into a database? Cause I haven't.
I also want to see citations about the rockafellers alleged allience with hitler.
And the US government created the Fed Reserve. I'm not defending it though.
There is numerous evidence but most of it comes straight from the files of Prescott Bush, who laundered money for the Nazis through the war. The Rockefellers involvment was investigated during Nuremburgh, of course the men who organized the trial would not allow prosecution, because many of them were members of the CFR. This is a matter of historical record, I'm not going to do your research for you.
It would appear that you won't do it for yourself either. "numerous" is not a citation, its an evasion. You can't make radical blanket statements, then brush aside scrutinty with platitudes and the idea that your above proving yourself.
Yes, I figured you would take the easy arguement instead of doing the research yourself. Regardless of his history, Arron Russo's film is supported by historical facts. Again, if you are really interested in the truth, you will do the research for yourself. I have cited many facts, the Rockefellers invested millions into the nazi party. They created a fuel additive that they sold to the nazis, LOOK THEM UP.
You have STATED many facts, you have CITED nothing, the gap between those two words is where disinformation breeds.
And as a student of history, I know that information from a biased or compromised source (Russo) must be viewed with extreme suspicion. Seperating ones history as being irrelevent is the hight of laziness and stupidity.
What part of Russo's film is biased? What facts has he given or I given that are incorrect? PROVE THAT THEY ARE SUSPECT. Don't just say it. You blather about citing sources, but I have not heard anything factual from you contradicting what he or I have said.
This is not a statement that is citable. I'm just telling you that as a history student, I'm constently being taught how to evaluate evidence in its context. The first thing you do is judge the motives and history of the person authoring the item in question. On the basis of historical scholarship, Russo's film would be viewed as unreliable as a basis for fact. If you can corroborate everything in it from reputable untainted sources, then its a different story.
I could cite sources all day, and drown this page, but I'm not going to dignify the arguement of someone who doesn't even know about the Rockefellers business relationship with IG Farben and the Nazis. I'm not making this up, it is historical record. Again, if you're really interested in the truth, you'll stop debating what you don't know and start researching. I'm not going to do it for you.
I'm not asking you to spout out irrelevent sources, I'm asking you to source what you say when its contested. Its the foundation of scholarship.
Its because I HAVE done research on the subject that I know there is far to much info to be able to track down your reference with ease. So I trust you to be an honest person and provide a defense of your claim.
Here, I'll get you started. Go to educate-yourself (dot) org
There is all kinds of reference material on the CFR, Mandell House, the FED, and the Rockefellers. Most source materials come from the Woodrow Wilson Presidential library. LOOK IT UP.
When I said cite yourself, I meant reputable sources, not some conspiricy theory blog.
This would be like me sending you to the Communist Party of China's website to inform yourself on Tibet. Rediculous.
Keep in mind, I'm not denying any of your claims, I just want to see context to evaluate your interpretation. If your that confident in what you say then theres no reason for you to be defensive.
I'm not defensive. And by the way, Educate-yourself is not a blog. Did you even check the site? The Woodrow Wilson Library is also not a blog. And by that measure your saying that all conspiracy sites and films have no factual evidence. If your so sure that these sites have nothing reputable to say, then prove them wrong.
I did go to educate-yourself and I was using blog as a derogatory reference to its unreliability. What I mean is that its something that would not be admissable as a source in a university level report.
I'm not against conspiricies, but maybe 1 out of 100 have a whiff of fact and when you lump 1000 together the crazy ones drown out the legitimate ones.
I can't go through all of the infinite conspiricies, but the whole nature of them is that they can't be proved or disproved.
Educate cites all of its sources, including the Woodrow Wilson Library. You still haven't addressed what in Arron Russo's film is false. You just state that he can't be trusted. What facts does he give that are false?
I though I had made it clear that I didn't see the film, only heard of it.
And I also said that there could be facts in his film, but that viewing it through a scholarly lense, he must be treated with extreme suspicion as a source due to his biased history.
If you can corroborate his statements through accepted practices in historical documents, or peer reviewed journals and books, then I would probably accept them.
Maybe you should watch the movie before you say its irrelevent. Is this the "scholorship" you were talking about. Every fact cited in his film can be found in the U.S national Archives. I checked again to be sure. Except of course the fact that the income tax is illegal, that is something the government dances around.
I didn't say the movie was irrelevent, I said that scholarly precedures on source reliability would view Russo as unreliable due to his history with the IRS and bias against it. That doesn't mean the movie is incorrect, it just means he has to be treated with suspicion and citing him requires background work to prove that his info corroborates with respected sources. Not that it can be found somewhere, but that each fact is accurate and interpreted honestly.
Sounds like a BS lawyer's arguement to me. Discredit the witness regardless of whether or not they know the truth. I don't see how Russo owing Income taxes which are illegal anyway discredits him. I would say it makes him even more courageous for taking on the IRS even when they are already after him. Why take the risk unless what he had to say was important? It wasn't going to get him out of the taxes.
More like its an argument ensuring accuracy rather then rhetoric.
He didn't stand up to the IRS publically. He evaded taxes quietly, then cried foul when he was caught. Theres a big difference. Someone taking a moral stand does it openly and accepts the consiquences.
So the fact that the Income tax was never ratified by congress and denied by the supreme court wasn't the reason he made the film? It was because he owed the IRS money and he wanted to "get back at them?" Does the idea that they had no right to tax his income in the first place not matter here? I've watched the film, it is not supported by retorich but facts.
Ah, so the facts that I've set out and backed up are rhetoric? 'Rhetoric' denotes a baseless assumption driven by rumor or propoganda. What things have I stated here that are baseless and why are they baseless?
Listen, I realize that your friend is in the CFR, and that most of them aren't out to control our lives. Even the Dalai Lama was a member of the CFR at one point! I think most of them believe in Socialism, which I don't agree with but its not necessarily 'evil'. I do think that they are being drawn into the club by a small group of men who play on their intellectualism and that these men have an agenda of their own.
Even good and critical people can be drawn into terrible things under the right circumstances. Nazi, Germany was a good example. Most Germans weren't 'evil', but an atmosphere was constructed around them that drove them to their darker half. I believe that this is going on today, and I think that the evidence many of us have compiled supports this.
You also have not addressed any of the facts I've layed out directly. Your not denying my claims because you have nothing to deny them with. If I am mistaken in these facts, then prove it. Prove there is no historical accuracy in the Rockefellers business dealings with IG Farben for instance.
I have addressed them, by asking you to support them with citations. I can't address them further without context.
If you had cared to read what I wrote, you'd see that I don't deny any of them. I just want to see the raw material so that I can judge your interpretation of the events. Notice that does not say they didn't happen, in fact, it assumes they did happen.
Either these events happened or they didn't. Which one is it? Did the Rockefellers do illegal business with IG Farben? The answere is yes, but I want to here it from you. Also, you continue to dust off web references as unreliable without giving any facts to back that up. Do you think history books are more reliable? I'm tired of people who scoff at the web.
I suspect that something did happen, I remain unsure of exactly what it was and how it was interpreted to come to the conclusion you present. I can't know without seeing your sources, the raw sources.
Web references are unreliable because there is no safety net or way to vett the information. Anyone can say anything and be answerable to no one. If you were to write a paper citing such a website it would not be accepted in either academia or any university.
Most information of this sort is not covered in 'academia' and many Ivy League peer papers ignore certain facts in order to display predetermined aims. I've read many historical overviews from Columbia University Professors like Robert Paxton that skip over important facts and events to produce an edited version of history. The views of these pretentious pinheads are worth nothing.
You can't use one professor or a group of professors as a basis against academia. Professors in general are more inclined towards supporting conspiricy theories, or at least the relativly credible ones. This kind of anti-intellectualism that people use as a basis to ignore the whole academic world as being curropted and part of the conspiricy is rediculous. Theres too much independence amoung professors for that to be possible.
I'm using Columbia as an example of a trend which I believe is increasingly prevalent. There is an obvious self censorship and inbred communal 'main line' that much of academia follows. For every professor I have read that actually doesn't edit his historical view, there are fifty or more that I have read that do.
Also, these same main line Proffs. tend to bully or ridicule anyone from the fold that begins making statements outside the designated intellectual sphere. I'm not saying its conspiracy, just overblown ego. It is a system that is imploding as we speak due to undue pretention and neglegence of the truth, which is what Academics is supposed to be about. It seems to me that they have forgotten this.
House doesn't say DNA, he says "Biological Property". Ever had to give your thumprint just to get an ID? I have. House was a Eugenics follower, as are the Rockefellers, and they consistently promoted the idea of genetic catologues of civilians. You think they don't plan ahead? In terms of the group that formed the CFR, 80 years may be "soon".
And no, I have all the IDs I'll ever need and I've never been fingerprinted. Which is, by the way, not "biological property." Biological property extends to thinks like blood, sperm, plasma and other fluids or materials that carry ones unique biological structure.
80 years is nothing to these people. These families have been instituting such projects for generations. Politics is an illusion. If the top tier candidates of both parties are members of the CFR, and they both follow the policies of the CFR, the goal being One World Gov., then both parties are essentially the same party.
The Rockefellers helped to institute eugenics programs in the US in early 1900's. Half the states of the union adopted the practices, which included sterilizing people who had a criminal history in their family, regardless of whether they had done anything. This was halted abruptly during WW2 when the true nature of eugenics was exposed, however, the leadership of the CFR still follow eugenics. LOOK IT UP.
At the time, eugenics was a new field and its perfectly understandable that it would be investigated further. But it was not adopted formaly by half the states. Indiana did, but the supreme court struck it down.
I don't deny that conservatives still have subconcious tendencies towards psudo-eugenics in their fear-mongering against immigration and the fear of ethic blending. I don't think anyone in power follows the doctrine of pure eugenics anymore But the line is admittedly blurry now.
I watched most of the video on the BIS from that website and even it had to admit that no investments were made in Nazi Germany after 1933. That was years before the war and even more before the final solution. The Nazis were just another political party then. Any money they got after then was through coercion of bank officials, including putting the Czech offical at gun point till he would authorize a transfer.
"The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
-David Rockefeller ((former?) Chairman Emeritus of the CFR, founder of theTrilateral Commission ) Public meeting transcript of the CFR.
Now I honestly don't care how you choose to interpret this. To anyone with common sense, it is obvious. They are not calling for corporate driven socialism, or international cooperation. They are calling for one world government under the control of a finite elite. Also, if you read the files on the Prescott Bush trial, the Rockefellers were heavily involved in transactions with the Nazis, especially through standard oil.
"The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz."
"a "Secret" I.G. Farben memorandum dated June 6, 1944 from Nuremburg defendent and then-Farben official von Knieriem to fellow Farben management officials. This yon Knieriem "Secret" memo set out those facts Haslam avoided in his Petroleum Times article. The memo was in fact a summary of what Standard was unwilling to reveal to the American public —........"
"i.e., the major contribution made by Standard Oil of New Jersey to the Nazi war machine. The Farben memorandum states that the Standard Oil agreements were absolutely essential for I.G. Farben:" The IG Farben Memo can be found in the U.S. National Archives, as well as The Prescott Bush Investigation transcripts. By the way, I found all this on the Web.....
This conversation is becoming a stalemate, as you won't accept that you need to back up your claims. I'm going to illustrate my point by issuing a blanket statement like yours without any sources for you to follow up on. Okay....
Penguins are reallly midgits in costumes who are paid by the Rockefellers to melt the ice in the Antarctic and get people to believe global warming so that the NWO can profit off world panic and use it as a distraction to move in for the kill.
Since apparently all web sources are unreliable even though they site references such as the Woodrow Wilson Library (which you seem to be ignoring), then I will leave you some quotes from your buddies at the CFR. In their own words:
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. " Continued:
"The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country......"
I have to catch a plane to NJ in a few short hours, but I'll look up your quotes over the next day or two and check their context and validity, then I'll address them.
And if penguins were standing up talking about One World government and controlling infrastucture through devious central banks like Rockefeller does, then yes I would believe it. It called critical thought and natural discernment, which you don't seem to have. Connect the dots, they are very close together. Your blinded by your overt rationalism to the truth thats right in front of you.
What I'm saying is that the Rockefeller playbook is as obvious as a talking penguin, to use your analogy. But somehow, people like you are unable to see it. You could have found all the information I've given yourself very easily, but you're not really looking for it. That's the problem.
I'm perfectly aware of almost everything you've told me. You can hardly avoid hearing people prattle on about it, but no one seems to be able to back it up beyond their insistence that its true.
I've been backing it up, did you not check the sources. Most people I know involved in this research have stacks of government documentation backing up what they claim. Perhaps you should do you're own research without any predetermined ideas of what you should find. When I started, I didn't believe any of this was possible. But the evidence I found forced me to rethink my position.
And no, the FED was designed by the same men who formed the CFR; Warburgh, Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, and others. Look, I've had this discussion with people before who haven't done the research, and I realize its a waste of time. Watch Arron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism" and research the REAL history behind the CFR. Their goal is not "International Cooperation", that is fiction designed to quell disent.
He got out of show business and into politics only after it came out that he owed $2,000,000 to the IRS, then all of a sudden an "expose" is warrented.
I support at least half of the views of Ron Paul etc. And I'm very dismayed at the state of the country, but you can't make these radical claims without being able to back it up. It makes the whole movment look like wackos that its okay to ignore. Give yourself some credibility.
The CFR writes our foreign policy. The Bush Preemptive war strategy was composed by think tanks closely associated with the CFR. Obama publically agreed to the possible use of Preemptive NUCLEAR strikes against Iran. As a Dem., it seems strange for him to take that stance, until you realize that he is a member of the CFR, which has consistantly endorsed such horrible actions through out its history.
Obama did not outright reject the use of preemtive attacks as a political move, just like hilary. they need to appear tough to win in a primary. its not nice, but politics rarely is.
And if you believe in the "Nuclear Deterence" then you should never say never to nuclear weapons. No predident has used them since Truman and few would have considered it, but all knew that they shouldn't let the world know that they won't.
BTW, Neo-Cons, people associated with the Carlyle Group and disciples of Friedmans Free Market utopia (like Rumsfeld) write our foreign policy and its a disaster.
They are members of the CFR! And the CFR dictates American policy, just like the Pilgrims Society does in Britain. The Neo-cons didn't overthrow the president of Iran in the fifties, that policy was developed by members of the CFR. This has been going on for centuries. DO YOUR RESEARCH.
The pilgrims are a group based on fostering the special relationship between the US and Britain, so they have as much sway here as they do their. Both ambassadors and heads of state are members. Both the Pilgirms and the CFR have also not been around for centuries.
And I would think that Chatham House would have supremecy over the Pilgrims in Britain anyway. They're a lot more like the CFR, the pilgrims are more like a glorified dinner club.
The Pilgrims Society made Chatham House. I've been studying this for years, sounds like you just started. The Pilgrims in turn were created by the Rhodes Round Table groups which are an extension of the British Freemasons and Illuminists. What you seem to think is that all these groups are seperate, when in fact they're run by all the same people.
Also, if you actually cared to listen to what the CFR says, at least half of it goes so totally against this administrations policies and goals. If they're all working together in an underground lair of secrecy, I don't see any benifit in them helping to prove the president's policy's a failure and increasing opposition against him and his administration.
They have a tendency to say one thing and do another. I also have ten pages of quotes right in front of me that speak volumes on their true intentions. They operate on the Hegel Dialectic. They use lies and forgery to create the illusion of opposition. You don't see the benefit because you're not looking at the big picture. The goal is One World Government, under the direction of a small group of people.
You can't achive that goal when you've helped turn the nation against the very government and people that are allegedly trying to impliment it. I've known CFR members and fellows. This is not the goal of the individuals, it may well be now or in the past the goal of some of them, but its not the mission statement.
Sure you can! If you replace them with a Dem. like Hillary who will ease public discourse while at the same time she carries out almost identical policies that run up the national debt and erode civil liberties. That's exactly what Bill Clinton did! This is about the ILLUSION of opposition. It doesn't matter what party you crush, as long as the other party picks up where they left off.
To summarize, RuleBritannia52 is repeating propoganda he has heard and simply took for truth. Don't listen to a word he says, do your own research. The Rockefellers are scum, and there's too much historical fact on it to write here. By the way, let Ron Paul shut down the Federal Reserve and watch how the CFR responds. RP's political outlook is the complete opposite of theirs.
For the record, I haven't said anything that I had heard anywhere else. And I'm not foolish enough to say anything that I can't back up. The one mistake i made is saying that all candidates get SS protection, but if you'll notice, I came back after doing my own research and corrected myself.
The CFRs membership is on public record. You can just go to wikipedia and see that Obama is a member, or was recently. But thats not something that concerns me anyway. My godfather's grandfather was a founding member and from what I know through that connection, theres nothing inherently wrong with it.
Pt. 2 Its the least extremist and therefore most likely to be answered. When you ask a question thats associated with conspiracy theories and the like, it makes it okay for the subject not to answer them. That was also the most important question in my mind.
You are correct...and I thought about this afterward...I don't really have an excuse other than the fact that it was a long, hot, stressful day and that was the easiest question to get out considering he had already been told that I was out there and made a beeline for his car.
But you are correct...there are 100 other questions I shoulda asked...
its not a big deal. he wouldn't have answered another question anyway. but its good to have a moderate, non-extremist question ready just on the off chance. I don't mean to offend by that, I'm not out to slam you or Ron. I really like Ron and think he's adding a lot to the campaign. I'm really hoping for a suprise primary victory, so he can debate the dems.
That doesn't mean I'm too keen on his presidency, but I'd rather it was him than any of the republicans. I just think he's saying some important things that add positivly to the campaigns discourse, and excitment level.
Hey, well done video. I was standing right next to you for like 15 mins at the side door by the motorcade. But I left a few mins before Obama came out. I had been waiting in the press section since 7:30, so i was hot and tired at that point. I did however eyeball your questions. You should have stuck with the impeachment one.
i was probably the only guy with really long thick hair. you may have mistaken me for a girl, it happens a lot. I've have a prof for 3 semesters who still thinks i'm either a girl or in some stage of transgender. its an awkward situation.
Anyway, I wish I had spoken up too. I considered it, but I didn't want it to turn into a confrontation, though I had no intention of making it one. I just wasn't sure what your attitude was, had I known you were perfectly sensible I probably would have.
Yeah I hear you...but I find most people are reasonable and sensible on a 1 to 1 basis. There are definitely always assholes...I was ridiculed and told to shut the fuck up a couple times...what can ya do except try to slap em with some kindness if not reason?
By the way...you'll find most people who support Ron Paul are more than reasonable and are the type of folks who will actually stop and talk with you, instead being confrontational. (despite what goes on here at youtube LOL)
yeah, generally i'm really concerned about it, but after standing in the sun for 5 hours I was way to hot and tired to even take on a minor debate.
As far as Ron Paul goes, I really like everything about him, that I know at least. I just don't think it would be a good idea to shut down just about every government department and agency, which he would like to.
We can all get behind the idea of shutting down the IRS, but the reality is theres no viable alternative and we'd be screwed without it, along with Dept. of Education, Transport, etc etc etc. I sympathize with the idea of going down to brass tacks, but at this stage in civilization, that would mean privitization would take up the slack, then we'd all be screwed.
decide which screws you more, gov. run medicare (which is admittedly not perfect) or privitized HMOs?
One is obligated by law to provide a minimum, and can be taken to court for not doing so. The other has a stated goal of provided the least amount of service for the most amount of money and runs their own appeals system.
Imagine being able to go to a nurse instead of a doctor for a simple prescription...Better yet imagine being able to snag some extra antibiotics from your neighbor without worry of breaking some drug law.
My point is in a free market needs would be filled by small business that would thrive if the upper middle class weren't robbed of 1/3 of their money and barriers to business weren't created by bureaucratic agencies beholden to established corporate interests.
It would be great if it was kept to small businesses, but the reality is it won't, or at least it won't last. Major corporations are out for profit and this will deprive them of it. They will find a way to insert themselves into this, they always do.
And for that matter, I don't know if I'd want an RN prescribing me meds. I want a full Dr who will know everything about my health and the meds being prescribed. RN and Dr education is very different.
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck ron paul
fackafacka 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i was there that day.. it's an obama event! why would he have ron paul signs in there? this is your president now. so suck it dumbasses
oddjob29 2 years ago
Because it's a public university, funded by our tax dollars, and also that pesky little thing called the 1st amendment. Enjoy your fascism you little Brown Shirt.
CounterRevolutionary 2 years ago 2
u can suck his dick bitch cuz believe thats all your here for .
u are such a fucking idiot. why would he ? hmm to maybe appear as if this was a free country i dont know.
MrJoaquinFire 2 years ago
@oddjob29 because we have the right to bring sign anywhere we want duh
stantheman42069 1 year ago
just wait until this JACKASS is sworn in
liberalism is oppression in the name of freedom.
oscarmacaroni 3 years ago
America is the oppression of freedom dumb fuck.
petepamf 2 years ago
Your right to free speech does not give you the right to enter events and be totally disruptive. Protest all you want outside the event, I'm sure you would have been yelling and interupting Senator Obama's speech.
thechad708 3 years ago
tell that to the communists and niggers who disrupt conservative events
FuckAlahInAss 3 years ago
with that kind of language, u don't have to say anything else...shame on u, nazi!
MrtvaPriroda 2 years ago
LOL all you people commenting on are retarded redneck republican douchebags.. first of all why the fuck are you even at a obama rally if you support a republican candidate??? and if ur answer is to use ur right of the 1st amendment then you really need to get a life.
Masterg715 3 years ago
so we can heckle, the same thing you commies do at our events
FuckAlahInAss 3 years ago
The obama campeign is starting to look like hitler all over again. He can use the homegrown terrorim bill to shut down anyone who speaks out against the government and its standings. We will all be helpless against the government at that point. Forgive me from saying this but I hope someone assasinates him.
mortum000 3 years ago
That dude was a pussy. He didn't have to show ID for any reason. You just had your rights violated son. Hope you're happy.
mi6QBranch 3 years ago
WE the people are spending more money for his security than any other person alive.
hillaryforthepeople 3 years ago
you exercised 1st amendment rights, just not in the rally
maddog1081 3 years ago
just wait until Hussein obama is elected president. the good old days of free speech will be no more. we only be able to read about it in history books...that is history books approved by the brown shirts appointed by Hussein obama and his party.
all i have to say is look down south to the country controlled by president chavez. this is what our country and "free speech" laws will be like.
donniebakerfan 3 years ago
What an idiot. Did you expect to video a federal secret service detail without being approached and asked for ID?
Are you really that dumb?
politburo 3 years ago
Mr. Anderson.
Ambushcrysis 3 years ago
Obama doesn't allow free speech on youtube either. nor Clinton. I don't know about Mccain? Obama's change looks alot like a police state. Sad days indeed.
Peaceandfearlesslove 3 years ago
That's why they are called Obamabots! Good video, I hope more people will see it. Sadly not many will. good luck.
Peaceandfearlesslove 3 years ago
Its how they run their speeches. you can't even take in Obama signs to the area. It has nothing to do with Ron Paul
PSUBLJ 3 years ago
You're right they shield themselves and their audiences from differing opinions...so free and democratic, don't you think? I forgot we fell asleep and woke up in a carefully controlled and contrived, oligarchical, police state. Are you old enough to remember what America stands for? The remnant of freedom-loving people have awoken. You will see.
googlevideodaddy 3 years ago
The Council of Foreign Relations is a good thing. It is under Congress. What a dumb and uneducated leftists comment, idiot conspiracy theorist
iamnaturalwon 3 years ago
Please explain how the CFR is under Congress.
googlevideodaddy 3 years ago
Cops did the right thing. Little liberal hippie faggot
iamnaturalwon 3 years ago
I love you. BTW...I'm a registered Republican who believes in your right to bear arms and understands the Constitution through a strict interpretation. I don't believe in government handouts or forced charity. Your attempts to be divisive and play identity politics do not work with me.
googlevideodaddy 3 years ago
Overgrown 12-year old at ASU is what you meant to say.
KarlNemetski 3 years ago
hell yea
paco757 4 years ago
Moron
SetPhazerz2Stun 4 years ago
very clever!
This shows how deep in shit the American people are!!! Very DEEP! VERY DEEP!
You are leaving in a POLICE STATE!!!
Congrats!
And WELCOME to the III REICH !
I need to see your papers!
Ron Paul 08!
samueldrdr 4 years ago
Obama shall bomb her?
Obama Obama Obama!
Boom boom boom!
Bom bomb bomb!
Threepwood23 4 years ago
The "Gozilla" music during the encounter with the bike-riding "paperz pleaze" Nazis was hilarious.
Unconstitutional, and un-American, demanding ID from a random guy on the street. Guess brownshirts like these gotta get in the game early right? Fucking Nazi wannabes.
Ron Paul 2008! THe only non-CFR candidate.
redhankyspanky 4 years ago
good work bud.
crem88 4 years ago 2
Im a Democrat for Ron Paul, thank you for your work it was a good video
BlackSabbath79x 4 years ago 2
He's a black presidential candidate in a predominantly white country. Why the FUCK else would he need extra high security. After all, you idiots wanted to disrupt his campaign. Fuck off and hold your own instead of disrupting his right to free speech.
TheRuthlessRoman 4 years ago
Hell yeah, Preach!
jmathews08 4 years ago
this rally was done at a public university, which means that no student should have been banned for having a Ron Paul sign. but apparantly you havent read the constitution.
danberkeley 4 years ago 2
Where in the constitution does it say that in order to practice free speech you are permitted to disrupt another person's right to free speech? Get is right will you!
TheRuthlessRoman 4 years ago
hey jackass, ALL top tier Presidential Candidates receive secret service protection.
adam64897 4 years ago
So does ROn Paul now!
jerbear420 4 years ago
nobody wants to disrupt him. But fact is fact. Let's talk about the CFR which he is a member of and he voted for the Patriot Act:)
/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
RON PAUL is the only solution and the voice they do not want you to hear!
marcusjansen239369 4 years ago 4
Don't you Ron Paul idiots have anything better to do than to protest and heckle at other candidate's rallies? Do you also realize that you are not helping your cause by doing this? You people are pulling this crap on everybody all over the country and all it does is make you and Ron Paul look really stupid. Perhaps you should simply focus on holding rallies of your own instead. Or...does that get you no attention? Hmmm.
thunderstruck665 4 years ago
Would you like to have a real discussion devoid of name calling and hatefulness? If so, I'd discuss with you why this video is a sign of democracy at work and share with you some of the reasons why I support my candidate and everyone who wants to exercise their right of political speech.
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
Under the first amendment, everyone is given the ability to believe anything, and they cannot be persecuted. But it does not give everyone the right to practice their beliefs, in cases where they are a danger to security. People who believe in human sacrifice are able to believe that because of the 1st, but they can't practice it. You can support Ron Paul, but you can't practice acts that heckle other candidates. The First Amendment isn't a weapon, guys, it's a shield!
RustythePirate 4 years ago
Yeah whatever you Republican planted stooge. I bet some Conservative PR group paid you to put this video here.
TheRuthlessRoman 4 years ago
Loved the video. I started laughing when you were screaming about the council for foreign realations and he just kept walking because he was too chicken to answer. GO RON PAUL.
smartpeople4ronpaul 4 years ago 3
with a ron paul sign**
fonezirra 4 years ago
why wouldn't I?
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
clever.
I guess i would assume rallies are for people supporting the person. It seems like your being a nuisance in order to gain publicity for ron paul. which i see as a bad way to go about it.
anyway. who am i to say whats wrong, at least your supporting the right candidate.
fonezirra 4 years ago
why would you go to an obama rally with ron paul sign?
fonezirra 4 years ago
I sincerely respect Paul and his views. But, I will never stand with the spamming scum who support him. If you guys are wondering why Paul is not dominating the polls as he probably should be, its cause his supporters are ruining his credibility by pulling stunts like this. This is the same crap as spamming every political YouTube video. Knock off the political gaminess.
anamnesist 4 years ago
What a ridiculous argument. You wont support the candidate because you don't like his supporters. How mindless to base your opinion on anything other than the candidate and his actions.
My guess is you wouldn't support him anyway, and I think, in reality, your comment is meant to sow some seeds of discontent with the electorate over the nature of Paul's political supporters.
People are responding to his message. If you think someone else's message is stronger than support them.
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
This is your post so I will be as respectful of your opinion as possible. What I was saying is this video makes me mad at the supporters so I would never rally with these similar minded people. I never said I wouldn't vote for Paul in the end. I do like his platform. It just seems to be a common theme I am seeing and it frustrates me cause I think Paul would do better without this negative campaigning gaminess from his supporters. Call me mindless if you like...
anamnesist 4 years ago
In America, we as individuals still enjoy the right to support a candidate however one chooses. What exactly is it you saw in this video that turns you off? I know what turns me off? Having a public speech at a public university and shutting down any alternative voices with fences and paid thugs. That tells me the candidate is afraid of other messages.
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ron Paul is a racists
KuanDeedee 4 years ago
Um, no he is not. Would you care to back up your conjecture?
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
Your video really sucks.you uncovered nothing!
Waste of video
dogphart1 4 years ago
Are you trying to make the police scary with the music overlay? Seriously, the guy is just keeping a record of events. Same thing happened to me when I was at campus at closing time because I lost my wallet. Also, don't expect Obama to answer random shouting.
JSResponds 4 years ago
As long as no law is being violated, that tough-guy cop is no more authorized to demand ID from you than I am. He was out of line.
We are dangerously over-compliant, to the point of servile docility.
RP 08 FTW
ProspectorSam 4 years ago 2
Are you certain of that statement? What if it is the policy of the institution as a whole that to be on the grounds one must be willing to submit ID to an officer? Also, the officer wasn't a tough guy at all. He was polite and apologetic. He indicated that he thought it was unfortunate that he had to require ID, but that policy is policy. Talk about bias.
JSResponds 4 years ago
"He was polite and apologetic."
I've encountered an officer who acted just the same way. I know exactly what that guy was doing, and you fell for it 100% according to his training.
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
--John Hay
RP 08 FTW
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
Pt. 1. Like I said earlier Sam, the cop did have probable cause to ask for ID in this situation. Besides, there were signs all over saying that everyone on site was subject to search. You were allowed to refuse search, but then they were allowed to eject you.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Pt. 2. That means he could have refused to show ID, but not only would that enhance the probable cause case, but it would have meant that he would have been removed over safety concerns.
Its a whole different deal when the Secret Service is there protecting a VIP. Standard rules are supplimented by threat specific rules. Thats why we haven't had an assasination attempt in decades.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
I could make the argument that I am a sovereign unto myself by virtue of my humanity and claim the protections of the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments...which is an argument that would have been mainstream 30 years ago...through our government schools and 2 decades of "COPS," we are now three generations into Authoritarian America. We were already quasi-socialists since the 30's. It's now just being cemented in. Our republic is in jeopardy and this is why people are so rabid about Paul.
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
Pt. 3. That being said, we are way, way to over compliant. To paraphrase Michael Moore (who I don't always agree with, but do a fair amount of times), in many other countries (France is the example) the government is afraid of the people, cause they'll take to the streets in protest at a moments notice, and often do. Whereas here, the people are afraid of the government. We need to reverse that and take it to the streets again like we did in the '60s
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
"the cop did have probable cause to ask for ID in this situation."
If this is private property then the owner can set the rules, in which case all bets are off as to the ID thing, I suppose. Otherwise I don't see the lawful basis here. Your nervousness does not create an enforceable obligation on my part to quell your nerves.
(BTW, I'm going away for 3 days so I may not get back here. Email me if a further answer is important.)
RP 08 FTW
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
this is not private property. it is a public state university. the police have legitimate jurisdiction. and probable cause trumps private property, legally speaking.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Yeah..you are right about that...I guess I coulda made a stink about the I.D. but, it woulda got me nowhere, and I might have been in Turkey the next day, getting water-boarded...
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
No, making the police scary was not the intent...I think if you read my comments on the side that the police were nothing but professional...The music is from Jaws and I thought it was appropriate because they circled me like sharks until they finally came up to me. And for the record, I think it's disconcerting anytime I'm being questioned by police especially if I'm doing nothing wrong.
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
Pt. 4 Like with any influential organization, it all depends on whos in power at any given time. For the most part, CFR stays pretty moderate, with the exception of a period during viet nam when a hawk was put in charge of the quarterly journal. But the membership was rightly outraged by his appointment.
But anyway, nice job with the video, and the persistence.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
If cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing it for what it is, I suppose that's somewhat understandable, but the history is clear. The CFR is an enemy of sovereignty, and hence an enemy of America. It has a veneer of respectability which shimmers away under scrutiny.
RP 08 FTW
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
Just out of curiousity, would you give a specific example or two of outright evil actions taken by the CFR (preferably not from the period I mentioned during Viet Nam)? And what exactly do you see is its role in government?
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Well, to be honest, most of their actions are done in the darkness...but here's a quote from the David Rockefeller..
This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
True, theres not much transparency for those not in the political circle, and I'd like to see a little more. Though my connections are tenious at best, I do know enough to know that the bulk of whats done is on the level. And the bulk of it thats not has been brought to the publics attention. Why do you think you have negative views of it? Because you've heard about all of the negatives. And rightly so.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Pt 2. The reason we're a republic is because the general population is not equipped to be involved in every decision, so whats is appropriate is not always brought to the publics attention until its complete.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Heres another quote.
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. ...
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
...Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
This quote does and yours do not urge a radical new world order against the interests of the US. What Ron Paul wants is the US out of other countries. So how do we do that without sacrificing our interests abroad? Through international cooperation. This is part of the Liberalism International Relations Theory that states that peace can be had through cooperation and interdependence.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
That doesn't mean we can't be self sustaining, it just means that we should have close diplomatic relations with other countries and ties to NGOs throught the world. This allows us to be directly uninvolved internationally with the military and any other non-diplomatic personel. It goes very much in line with with RP's non interventionisnt/get out of other countries and their affairs plan.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Here is a quote from Colonel Mandell House, the founder of the CFR: "[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency."
Continued below.........
chironicles 4 years ago
"Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions".
chironicles 4 years ago
Straight from the mouth of the founder on the CFR. By the way, the Rockefellers and Morgans invested huge sums of money into the Nazi party, which was the ONLY reason such a minority extremist party was able to rise to prominence. They also produced a fuel additive that Nazi war planes NEEDED, or they could not fly. The Rockefellers were happy to sell the patented fuel to Hitler through the entire war.
chironicles 4 years ago
The CFR created the Fed. Reserve through lies and trickery, allowing private banks to take control of the economy and create a system of perpetual debt, which is by design, as Mandell House admitted. The CFR's goal is dissolution of all borders and any civil constitutions that maintain them. Law would then be written through abstract governing bodies like the WTO, who does not answere to the public. Sounds like tyranny to me.
chironicles 4 years ago
you're mistakeing erasing borders with international cooperation, see my earlier post.
I want to see a citation for that quote. If its real, there is likely context. And even if its real, he says "soon" and that was about 80 years ago, probably. Have you had to enter your dna into a database? Cause I haven't.
I also want to see citations about the rockafellers alleged allience with hitler.
And the US government created the Fed Reserve. I'm not defending it though.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
There is numerous evidence but most of it comes straight from the files of Prescott Bush, who laundered money for the Nazis through the war. The Rockefellers involvment was investigated during Nuremburgh, of course the men who organized the trial would not allow prosecution, because many of them were members of the CFR. This is a matter of historical record, I'm not going to do your research for you.
chironicles 4 years ago
It would appear that you won't do it for yourself either. "numerous" is not a citation, its an evasion. You can't make radical blanket statements, then brush aside scrutinty with platitudes and the idea that your above proving yourself.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Yes, I figured you would take the easy arguement instead of doing the research yourself. Regardless of his history, Arron Russo's film is supported by historical facts. Again, if you are really interested in the truth, you will do the research for yourself. I have cited many facts, the Rockefellers invested millions into the nazi party. They created a fuel additive that they sold to the nazis, LOOK THEM UP.
chironicles 4 years ago
You have STATED many facts, you have CITED nothing, the gap between those two words is where disinformation breeds.
And as a student of history, I know that information from a biased or compromised source (Russo) must be viewed with extreme suspicion. Seperating ones history as being irrelevent is the hight of laziness and stupidity.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
What part of Russo's film is biased? What facts has he given or I given that are incorrect? PROVE THAT THEY ARE SUSPECT. Don't just say it. You blather about citing sources, but I have not heard anything factual from you contradicting what he or I have said.
chironicles 4 years ago
This is not a statement that is citable. I'm just telling you that as a history student, I'm constently being taught how to evaluate evidence in its context. The first thing you do is judge the motives and history of the person authoring the item in question. On the basis of historical scholarship, Russo's film would be viewed as unreliable as a basis for fact. If you can corroborate everything in it from reputable untainted sources, then its a different story.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
I could cite sources all day, and drown this page, but I'm not going to dignify the arguement of someone who doesn't even know about the Rockefellers business relationship with IG Farben and the Nazis. I'm not making this up, it is historical record. Again, if you're really interested in the truth, you'll stop debating what you don't know and start researching. I'm not going to do it for you.
chironicles 4 years ago
I'm not asking you to spout out irrelevent sources, I'm asking you to source what you say when its contested. Its the foundation of scholarship.
Its because I HAVE done research on the subject that I know there is far to much info to be able to track down your reference with ease. So I trust you to be an honest person and provide a defense of your claim.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Here, I'll get you started. Go to educate-yourself (dot) org
There is all kinds of reference material on the CFR, Mandell House, the FED, and the Rockefellers. Most source materials come from the Woodrow Wilson Presidential library. LOOK IT UP.
chironicles 4 years ago
When I said cite yourself, I meant reputable sources, not some conspiricy theory blog.
This would be like me sending you to the Communist Party of China's website to inform yourself on Tibet. Rediculous.
Keep in mind, I'm not denying any of your claims, I just want to see context to evaluate your interpretation. If your that confident in what you say then theres no reason for you to be defensive.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
I'm not defensive. And by the way, Educate-yourself is not a blog. Did you even check the site? The Woodrow Wilson Library is also not a blog. And by that measure your saying that all conspiracy sites and films have no factual evidence. If your so sure that these sites have nothing reputable to say, then prove them wrong.
chironicles 4 years ago
I did go to educate-yourself and I was using blog as a derogatory reference to its unreliability. What I mean is that its something that would not be admissable as a source in a university level report.
I'm not against conspiricies, but maybe 1 out of 100 have a whiff of fact and when you lump 1000 together the crazy ones drown out the legitimate ones.
I can't go through all of the infinite conspiricies, but the whole nature of them is that they can't be proved or disproved.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Educate cites all of its sources, including the Woodrow Wilson Library. You still haven't addressed what in Arron Russo's film is false. You just state that he can't be trusted. What facts does he give that are false?
chironicles 4 years ago
I though I had made it clear that I didn't see the film, only heard of it.
And I also said that there could be facts in his film, but that viewing it through a scholarly lense, he must be treated with extreme suspicion as a source due to his biased history.
If you can corroborate his statements through accepted practices in historical documents, or peer reviewed journals and books, then I would probably accept them.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Maybe you should watch the movie before you say its irrelevent. Is this the "scholorship" you were talking about. Every fact cited in his film can be found in the U.S national Archives. I checked again to be sure. Except of course the fact that the income tax is illegal, that is something the government dances around.
chironicles 4 years ago
I didn't say the movie was irrelevent, I said that scholarly precedures on source reliability would view Russo as unreliable due to his history with the IRS and bias against it. That doesn't mean the movie is incorrect, it just means he has to be treated with suspicion and citing him requires background work to prove that his info corroborates with respected sources. Not that it can be found somewhere, but that each fact is accurate and interpreted honestly.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Sounds like a BS lawyer's arguement to me. Discredit the witness regardless of whether or not they know the truth. I don't see how Russo owing Income taxes which are illegal anyway discredits him. I would say it makes him even more courageous for taking on the IRS even when they are already after him. Why take the risk unless what he had to say was important? It wasn't going to get him out of the taxes.
chironicles 4 years ago
More like its an argument ensuring accuracy rather then rhetoric.
He didn't stand up to the IRS publically. He evaded taxes quietly, then cried foul when he was caught. Theres a big difference. Someone taking a moral stand does it openly and accepts the consiquences.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
So the fact that the Income tax was never ratified by congress and denied by the supreme court wasn't the reason he made the film? It was because he owed the IRS money and he wanted to "get back at them?" Does the idea that they had no right to tax his income in the first place not matter here? I've watched the film, it is not supported by retorich but facts.
chironicles 4 years ago
I was refering to your rhetoric and my trying to maintain the accuracy of my of my own words against your rhetoric.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Ah, so the facts that I've set out and backed up are rhetoric? 'Rhetoric' denotes a baseless assumption driven by rumor or propoganda. What things have I stated here that are baseless and why are they baseless?
chironicles 4 years ago
Listen, I realize that your friend is in the CFR, and that most of them aren't out to control our lives. Even the Dalai Lama was a member of the CFR at one point! I think most of them believe in Socialism, which I don't agree with but its not necessarily 'evil'. I do think that they are being drawn into the club by a small group of men who play on their intellectualism and that these men have an agenda of their own.
chironicles 4 years ago
Even good and critical people can be drawn into terrible things under the right circumstances. Nazi, Germany was a good example. Most Germans weren't 'evil', but an atmosphere was constructed around them that drove them to their darker half. I believe that this is going on today, and I think that the evidence many of us have compiled supports this.
chironicles 4 years ago
You also have not addressed any of the facts I've layed out directly. Your not denying my claims because you have nothing to deny them with. If I am mistaken in these facts, then prove it. Prove there is no historical accuracy in the Rockefellers business dealings with IG Farben for instance.
chironicles 4 years ago
I have addressed them, by asking you to support them with citations. I can't address them further without context.
If you had cared to read what I wrote, you'd see that I don't deny any of them. I just want to see the raw material so that I can judge your interpretation of the events. Notice that does not say they didn't happen, in fact, it assumes they did happen.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Either these events happened or they didn't. Which one is it? Did the Rockefellers do illegal business with IG Farben? The answere is yes, but I want to here it from you. Also, you continue to dust off web references as unreliable without giving any facts to back that up. Do you think history books are more reliable? I'm tired of people who scoff at the web.
chironicles 4 years ago
I suspect that something did happen, I remain unsure of exactly what it was and how it was interpreted to come to the conclusion you present. I can't know without seeing your sources, the raw sources.
Web references are unreliable because there is no safety net or way to vett the information. Anyone can say anything and be answerable to no one. If you were to write a paper citing such a website it would not be accepted in either academia or any university.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Most information of this sort is not covered in 'academia' and many Ivy League peer papers ignore certain facts in order to display predetermined aims. I've read many historical overviews from Columbia University Professors like Robert Paxton that skip over important facts and events to produce an edited version of history. The views of these pretentious pinheads are worth nothing.
chironicles 4 years ago
You can't use one professor or a group of professors as a basis against academia. Professors in general are more inclined towards supporting conspiricy theories, or at least the relativly credible ones. This kind of anti-intellectualism that people use as a basis to ignore the whole academic world as being curropted and part of the conspiricy is rediculous. Theres too much independence amoung professors for that to be possible.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
I'm using Columbia as an example of a trend which I believe is increasingly prevalent. There is an obvious self censorship and inbred communal 'main line' that much of academia follows. For every professor I have read that actually doesn't edit his historical view, there are fifty or more that I have read that do.
chironicles 4 years ago
Also, these same main line Proffs. tend to bully or ridicule anyone from the fold that begins making statements outside the designated intellectual sphere. I'm not saying its conspiracy, just overblown ego. It is a system that is imploding as we speak due to undue pretention and neglegence of the truth, which is what Academics is supposed to be about. It seems to me that they have forgotten this.
chironicles 4 years ago
House doesn't say DNA, he says "Biological Property". Ever had to give your thumprint just to get an ID? I have. House was a Eugenics follower, as are the Rockefellers, and they consistently promoted the idea of genetic catologues of civilians. You think they don't plan ahead? In terms of the group that formed the CFR, 80 years may be "soon".
chironicles 4 years ago
80 years is an infinite span in politics.
And no, I have all the IDs I'll ever need and I've never been fingerprinted. Which is, by the way, not "biological property." Biological property extends to thinks like blood, sperm, plasma and other fluids or materials that carry ones unique biological structure.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
80 years is nothing to these people. These families have been instituting such projects for generations. Politics is an illusion. If the top tier candidates of both parties are members of the CFR, and they both follow the policies of the CFR, the goal being One World Gov., then both parties are essentially the same party.
chironicles 4 years ago
The Rockefellers helped to institute eugenics programs in the US in early 1900's. Half the states of the union adopted the practices, which included sterilizing people who had a criminal history in their family, regardless of whether they had done anything. This was halted abruptly during WW2 when the true nature of eugenics was exposed, however, the leadership of the CFR still follow eugenics. LOOK IT UP.
chironicles 4 years ago
At the time, eugenics was a new field and its perfectly understandable that it would be investigated further. But it was not adopted formaly by half the states. Indiana did, but the supreme court struck it down.
I don't deny that conservatives still have subconcious tendencies towards psudo-eugenics in their fear-mongering against immigration and the fear of ethic blending. I don't think anyone in power follows the doctrine of pure eugenics anymore But the line is admittedly blurry now.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
The Rockefellers also helped to institute the one child policy in China.
chironicles 4 years ago
I watched most of the video on the BIS from that website and even it had to admit that no investments were made in Nazi Germany after 1933. That was years before the war and even more before the final solution. The Nazis were just another political party then. Any money they got after then was through coercion of bank officials, including putting the Czech offical at gun point till he would authorize a transfer.
They just glossed over all that.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
"The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
-David Rockefeller ((former?) Chairman Emeritus of the CFR, founder of theTrilateral Commission ) Public meeting transcript of the CFR.
chironicles 4 years ago
Now I honestly don't care how you choose to interpret this. To anyone with common sense, it is obvious. They are not calling for corporate driven socialism, or international cooperation. They are calling for one world government under the control of a finite elite. Also, if you read the files on the Prescott Bush trial, the Rockefellers were heavily involved in transactions with the Nazis, especially through standard oil.
chironicles 4 years ago
"The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz."
San Francisco Chronicle, 2003
chironicles 4 years ago
"a "Secret" I.G. Farben memorandum dated June 6, 1944 from Nuremburg defendent and then-Farben official von Knieriem to fellow Farben management officials. This yon Knieriem "Secret" memo set out those facts Haslam avoided in his Petroleum Times article. The memo was in fact a summary of what Standard was unwilling to reveal to the American public —........"
chironicles 4 years ago
"i.e., the major contribution made by Standard Oil of New Jersey to the Nazi war machine. The Farben memorandum states that the Standard Oil agreements were absolutely essential for I.G. Farben:" The IG Farben Memo can be found in the U.S. National Archives, as well as The Prescott Bush Investigation transcripts. By the way, I found all this on the Web.....
chironicles 4 years ago
This conversation is becoming a stalemate, as you won't accept that you need to back up your claims. I'm going to illustrate my point by issuing a blanket statement like yours without any sources for you to follow up on. Okay....
Penguins are reallly midgits in costumes who are paid by the Rockefellers to melt the ice in the Antarctic and get people to believe global warming so that the NWO can profit off world panic and use it as a distraction to move in for the kill.
Now, prove me wrong.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Since apparently all web sources are unreliable even though they site references such as the Woodrow Wilson Library (which you seem to be ignoring), then I will leave you some quotes from your buddies at the CFR. In their own words:
chironicles 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. " Continued:
chironicles 4 years ago
"The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country......"
chironicles 4 years ago
and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton, quote from "Tragedy and Hope", 1966
chironicles 4 years ago
I have to catch a plane to NJ in a few short hours, but I'll look up your quotes over the next day or two and check their context and validity, then I'll address them.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
And if penguins were standing up talking about One World government and controlling infrastucture through devious central banks like Rockefeller does, then yes I would believe it. It called critical thought and natural discernment, which you don't seem to have. Connect the dots, they are very close together. Your blinded by your overt rationalism to the truth thats right in front of you.
chironicles 4 years ago
Obviously the "Penguins" aren't going to be talking and giving away their cover, they're too well paid by the Rockefellers.
So what your saying is that you believe Penguins are midgits in disguise on the Rockefellers payroll.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
What I'm saying is that the Rockefeller playbook is as obvious as a talking penguin, to use your analogy. But somehow, people like you are unable to see it. You could have found all the information I've given yourself very easily, but you're not really looking for it. That's the problem.
chironicles 4 years ago
I'm perfectly aware of almost everything you've told me. You can hardly avoid hearing people prattle on about it, but no one seems to be able to back it up beyond their insistence that its true.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
I've been backing it up, did you not check the sources. Most people I know involved in this research have stacks of government documentation backing up what they claim. Perhaps you should do you're own research without any predetermined ideas of what you should find. When I started, I didn't believe any of this was possible. But the evidence I found forced me to rethink my position.
chironicles 4 years ago
And no, the FED was designed by the same men who formed the CFR; Warburgh, Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, and others. Look, I've had this discussion with people before who haven't done the research, and I realize its a waste of time. Watch Arron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism" and research the REAL history behind the CFR. Their goal is not "International Cooperation", that is fiction designed to quell disent.
chironicles 4 years ago
An Aron Russo flick is not legitimate research.
He got out of show business and into politics only after it came out that he owed $2,000,000 to the IRS, then all of a sudden an "expose" is warrented.
I support at least half of the views of Ron Paul etc. And I'm very dismayed at the state of the country, but you can't make these radical claims without being able to back it up. It makes the whole movment look like wackos that its okay to ignore. Give yourself some credibility.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
The CFR writes our foreign policy. The Bush Preemptive war strategy was composed by think tanks closely associated with the CFR. Obama publically agreed to the possible use of Preemptive NUCLEAR strikes against Iran. As a Dem., it seems strange for him to take that stance, until you realize that he is a member of the CFR, which has consistantly endorsed such horrible actions through out its history.
chironicles 4 years ago
Obama did not outright reject the use of preemtive attacks as a political move, just like hilary. they need to appear tough to win in a primary. its not nice, but politics rarely is.
And if you believe in the "Nuclear Deterence" then you should never say never to nuclear weapons. No predident has used them since Truman and few would have considered it, but all knew that they shouldn't let the world know that they won't.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
BTW, Neo-Cons, people associated with the Carlyle Group and disciples of Friedmans Free Market utopia (like Rumsfeld) write our foreign policy and its a disaster.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
They are members of the CFR! And the CFR dictates American policy, just like the Pilgrims Society does in Britain. The Neo-cons didn't overthrow the president of Iran in the fifties, that policy was developed by members of the CFR. This has been going on for centuries. DO YOUR RESEARCH.
chironicles 4 years ago
The pilgrims are a group based on fostering the special relationship between the US and Britain, so they have as much sway here as they do their. Both ambassadors and heads of state are members. Both the Pilgirms and the CFR have also not been around for centuries.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
And I would think that Chatham House would have supremecy over the Pilgrims in Britain anyway. They're a lot more like the CFR, the pilgrims are more like a glorified dinner club.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
The Pilgrims Society made Chatham House. I've been studying this for years, sounds like you just started. The Pilgrims in turn were created by the Rhodes Round Table groups which are an extension of the British Freemasons and Illuminists. What you seem to think is that all these groups are seperate, when in fact they're run by all the same people.
chironicles 4 years ago
Also, if you actually cared to listen to what the CFR says, at least half of it goes so totally against this administrations policies and goals. If they're all working together in an underground lair of secrecy, I don't see any benifit in them helping to prove the president's policy's a failure and increasing opposition against him and his administration.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
They have a tendency to say one thing and do another. I also have ten pages of quotes right in front of me that speak volumes on their true intentions. They operate on the Hegel Dialectic. They use lies and forgery to create the illusion of opposition. You don't see the benefit because you're not looking at the big picture. The goal is One World Government, under the direction of a small group of people.
chironicles 4 years ago
You can't achive that goal when you've helped turn the nation against the very government and people that are allegedly trying to impliment it. I've known CFR members and fellows. This is not the goal of the individuals, it may well be now or in the past the goal of some of them, but its not the mission statement.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Sure you can! If you replace them with a Dem. like Hillary who will ease public discourse while at the same time she carries out almost identical policies that run up the national debt and erode civil liberties. That's exactly what Bill Clinton did! This is about the ILLUSION of opposition. It doesn't matter what party you crush, as long as the other party picks up where they left off.
chironicles 4 years ago
To summarize, RuleBritannia52 is repeating propoganda he has heard and simply took for truth. Don't listen to a word he says, do your own research. The Rockefellers are scum, and there's too much historical fact on it to write here. By the way, let Ron Paul shut down the Federal Reserve and watch how the CFR responds. RP's political outlook is the complete opposite of theirs.
chironicles 4 years ago
For the record, I haven't said anything that I had heard anywhere else. And I'm not foolish enough to say anything that I can't back up. The one mistake i made is saying that all candidates get SS protection, but if you'll notice, I came back after doing my own research and corrected myself.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Pt. 3
The CFRs membership is on public record. You can just go to wikipedia and see that Obama is a member, or was recently. But thats not something that concerns me anyway. My godfather's grandfather was a founding member and from what I know through that connection, theres nothing inherently wrong with it.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Pt. 2 Its the least extremist and therefore most likely to be answered. When you ask a question thats associated with conspiracy theories and the like, it makes it okay for the subject not to answer them. That was also the most important question in my mind.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
You are correct...and I thought about this afterward...I don't really have an excuse other than the fact that it was a long, hot, stressful day and that was the easiest question to get out considering he had already been told that I was out there and made a beeline for his car.
But you are correct...there are 100 other questions I shoulda asked...
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
its not a big deal. he wouldn't have answered another question anyway. but its good to have a moderate, non-extremist question ready just on the off chance. I don't mean to offend by that, I'm not out to slam you or Ron. I really like Ron and think he's adding a lot to the campaign. I'm really hoping for a suprise primary victory, so he can debate the dems.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
That doesn't mean I'm too keen on his presidency, but I'd rather it was him than any of the republicans. I just think he's saying some important things that add positivly to the campaigns discourse, and excitment level.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
May I ask what it is you don't like? We can take this to email if you like...I would just like the opportunity to hear your views.
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
Pt. 1
Hey, well done video. I was standing right next to you for like 15 mins at the side door by the motorcade. But I left a few mins before Obama came out. I had been waiting in the press section since 7:30, so i was hot and tired at that point. I did however eyeball your questions. You should have stuck with the impeachment one.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
really?? which person were you? I wish you woulda said somethin!
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
i was probably the only guy with really long thick hair. you may have mistaken me for a girl, it happens a lot. I've have a prof for 3 semesters who still thinks i'm either a girl or in some stage of transgender. its an awkward situation.
Anyway, I wish I had spoken up too. I considered it, but I didn't want it to turn into a confrontation, though I had no intention of making it one. I just wasn't sure what your attitude was, had I known you were perfectly sensible I probably would have.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Yeah I hear you...but I find most people are reasonable and sensible on a 1 to 1 basis. There are definitely always assholes...I was ridiculed and told to shut the fuck up a couple times...what can ya do except try to slap em with some kindness if not reason?
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
By the way...you'll find most people who support Ron Paul are more than reasonable and are the type of folks who will actually stop and talk with you, instead being confrontational. (despite what goes on here at youtube LOL)
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
yeah, generally i'm really concerned about it, but after standing in the sun for 5 hours I was way to hot and tired to even take on a minor debate.
As far as Ron Paul goes, I really like everything about him, that I know at least. I just don't think it would be a good idea to shut down just about every government department and agency, which he would like to.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
I meant generally I'm not really concerned about it. I could have sworn I already typed the "not"
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
We can all get behind the idea of shutting down the IRS, but the reality is theres no viable alternative and we'd be screwed without it, along with Dept. of Education, Transport, etc etc etc. I sympathize with the idea of going down to brass tacks, but at this stage in civilization, that would mean privitization would take up the slack, then we'd all be screwed.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
screwed how? We're being screwed BY these departments! c'mon, wake up please, it's important!
RonPaulClips 4 years ago
decide which screws you more, gov. run medicare (which is admittedly not perfect) or privitized HMOs?
One is obligated by law to provide a minimum, and can be taken to court for not doing so. The other has a stated goal of provided the least amount of service for the most amount of money and runs their own appeals system.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago
Imagine being able to go to a nurse instead of a doctor for a simple prescription...Better yet imagine being able to snag some extra antibiotics from your neighbor without worry of breaking some drug law.
My point is in a free market needs would be filled by small business that would thrive if the upper middle class weren't robbed of 1/3 of their money and barriers to business weren't created by bureaucratic agencies beholden to established corporate interests.
googlevideodaddy 4 years ago
It would be great if it was kept to small businesses, but the reality is it won't, or at least it won't last. Major corporations are out for profit and this will deprive them of it. They will find a way to insert themselves into this, they always do.
And for that matter, I don't know if I'd want an RN prescribing me meds. I want a full Dr who will know everything about my health and the meds being prescribed. RN and Dr education is very different.
RuleBritannia52 4 years ago